IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I was on the observation deck at the top of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse once and a father started to pick up his small child so that he could look over the railing. A park employee immediately rushed over and stopped the idiot from lifting the kid all the way up. I hope he was sufficiently embarrassed. I couldn't believe the stupidity. Why do so many parents have this exaggerated sense of confidence when holding their children in precarious positions?

I was on the observation deck at the top of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse once and a father started to pick up his small child so that he could look over the railing. A park employee immediately rushed over and stopped the idiot from lifting the kid all the way up. I hope he was sufficiently embarrassed. I couldn't believe the stupidity. Why do so many parents have this exaggerated sense of confidence when holding their children in precarious positions?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I am also surprised the mother didn't jump in after her son..... I really can't think of many parents that wouldn't have done it.

Neither article I read went into any detail as to how the mother reacted, whether or not she tried to go in after the child. It's quite possible that she did and people stopped her. It's also possible that she froze in a state of panic, or she tried and couldn't get over the wall.

No matter what folks say from the comfort of their computer screens, you really can't know how you would react in a situation like this. Things that could have kept the mother from jumping in the exhibit in an attempt to save her child:

Shock - for all we know, she passed out or was otherwise incapacitated after seeing her child fall. Not every person becomes Superman in a crisis.

Tried and failed - perhaps she did try to get into the enclosure but couldn't. For example, there are a lot of obese people in this country, and some of them would be unable to climb a fence and get into a zoo exhibit on their best day.

Tried and thwarted - perhaps she tried but was stopped by other folks at the scene. It might have been completely obvious to all on hand that the child died on impact and any heroics on the mother's part might have only led to her death too. For all we know, she had another baby with her.

This is hardly an exhaustive list of the possibilities. We need to be careful about rushing to profess our bravado with statements like "Well I sure would've jumped in there to fight off those dogs!"

No one had done it before so maybe the zoo thought no one could. I still blame the kid; he could read and he was old enough to know better. I also blame the teacher for not keeping better track of him.

Seriously? A three year old? You don't spend much time around little kids, do you?

Anyone who depends on a three year old to "know better" about anything shouldn't be taking care of them. That's exactly the age where they experiment with the newness of the idea of disobedience but have not yet learned the consequences.

Two to three years old. The little rug-biters learn to say "No!". It is among the more memorable periods in the career of every new parent. It's also the period which presents the greatest hurdle to child-rearing without corporal punishment.

There is something called 'contributory negligence'. It's not either the zoo is to blame or the parent is. If mum propped her kid up on the barrier and dropped him this does not absolve the zoo.

Mind you, thinking about Amsterdam zoo, it would be easy for a kid to fall off the wall that separates the public from the moat that separates the lions from the wall. I have always thought a really determined lion could get out of that enclosure and hope I'm not there when one of them tries.

Seriously? A three year old? You don't spend much time around little kids, do you?

Anyone who depends on a three year old to "know better" about anything shouldn't be taking care of them. That's exactly the age where they experiment with the newness of the idea of disobedience but have not yet learned the consequences.

Two to three years old. The little rug-biters learn to say "No!". It is among the more memorable periods in the career of every new parent. It's also the period which presents the greatest hurdle to child-rearing without corporal punishment.

I'm pretty sure korenyx was referring to the story in his own previous post, involving an older child on a school trip, rather than to the 3-year-old child in the OP.

Respectfully,
Myriad

__________________Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.

This is a terrible thing, but it's a shame things like this cause people to say such moronic crap as they desperately try to blame and claim what they would do in the situation and why the parents deserve to die or be imprisoned. People seem to just hate the idea that accidents can happen.

Hopefully the parents remember that when they try to blame the zoo instead of themselves.

I expect that the ones who kill their prey first do so mostly because that's just how their hunting techniques evolved. An accident, in other words.

Compare to house cats, who delight in tormenting their prey even when they aren't even hungry ... and when in a magnanimous mood they bring in the half-dead bodies to try and teach their stupid humans how to do it too.

-------------------------------------------------------------

(Poor Mrs. qg. One of our dear kittehs, the midnight black one, came up once and gifted her with the body of a blue-tailed skink it had caught on the porch. Still twitching.

Then she turned and saw the innocent blue eyes of our little Siamese half-breed beside her. That one had the skink's tail in her mouth ... also still twitching.

I managed not to laugh at her reaction, which forestalled what could have been an ugly episode. I also had to explain to her about skinks and break-away tails, which she found almost as disturbing as the dying lizard itself.)

Seriously? A three year old? You don't spend much time around little kids, do you?

Anyone who depends on a three year old to "know better" about anything shouldn't be taking care of them. That's exactly the age where they experiment with the newness of the idea of disobedience but have not yet learned the consequences.

Two to three years old. The little rug-biters learn to say "No!". It is among the more memorable periods in the career of every new parent. It's also the period which presents the greatest hurdle to child-rearing without corporal punishment.

Please re-read my post. I was not talking about this case; I was talking about a middle-schooler in Wichita. The boy in Wichita climbed a barrier and got too close to a leopard.

Would you feel the same if the parent had killed the kid driving drunk? Left a loaded gun in the crib?

The drunk driving example is an analogy fail since the drunk driver is likely to re-offend and put more kids at risk. That needs to be addressed.

The loaded gun in a crib is an analogy fail because it crosses a line from stupid accident to gross negligence or willful indifference.

While I understand your point, stupidity is not necessarily considered a crime. Society tends to draw a line of distinction between stupidity and gross negligence.

Quote:

So high a degree negligence that it shows a reckless disregard for one's legal duty, the safety of others' life, limb, property, or a conscious indifference to the rights of others. Gross negligence, however, does not have a precise legal meaning except in involuntary manslaughter (causing death through reckless driving, for example).

Would you seek criminal charges for the parent whose child runs in the street and is struck by a car? The child who accidentally drowns? Should we criminalize leaving the battery out of the smoke alarm (not counting landlords' responsibilities)? Yes, these can be outrageously irresponsible behaviors, but society doesn't have a consensus these are criminal acts.

__________________(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

There is a crocodile enclosure I visited once. You could easily lean over the top of the rail and look down at the crocodile. There was a notice that said if you fell in and the fall did not kill you then the crocodile would!

The trouble with putting a high fence in so that parents cannot put their children on top is that the fence ruins the view for the rest of us.

I think any parent whose child dies from the parent's own stupidity should not be allowed to have any more children.

The Seattle zoo (Woodland Park) has glass windows on their viewing platforms rather than open railings. They work quite well.

The Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma has a couple really great exhibits with through glass viewing. The polar bear exhibit is fantastic.

__________________(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

No matter what folks say from the comfort of their computer screens, you really can't know how you would react in a situation like this. Things that could have kept the mother from jumping in the exhibit in an attempt to save her child:

...

This is hardly an exhaustive list of the possibilities. We need to be careful about rushing to profess our bravado with statements like "Well I sure would've jumped in there to fight off those dogs!"

While I do agree that judgmental morons behind a computer screen don't really have a clue, let me add this as a parent who regularly takes his two boys, both under the age of 4, to the zoo.

1) Those who claim that it's crazy to let the kids crawl on the railing - no. That's idiotic. Yes, that's what kids do.
2) That being said, as a parent whose kids do that, I try to be extremely diligent about watching, and even holding them to make sure they don't overdo it. Second, while I can't guarantee that I know exactly how I would respond, it's not as simple as "you don't know what you would do," because as my kids are there, I am extremely aware of a potential problem, and am absolutely on my toes and have a plan in the back of my head. I am prepared to act if something were to happen. And if he fell in, you damn straight I would be in the pen right behind them.

As a parent, I know that I can't control everything my kids do. However, it is because of that that I prepare myself if something were to happen when they do crazy things. It is always in the back of my mind - watch for this, be careful about that, BE PREPARED.

Kids are unpredictable, therefore, as a parent, you need to be prepared for the unpredictable.

__________________"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

The drunk driving example is an analogy fail since the drunk driver is likely to re-offend and put more kids at risk. That needs to be addressed.

The loaded gun in a crib is an analogy fail because it crosses a line from stupid accident to gross negligence or willful indifference.

While I understand your point, stupidity is not necessarily considered a crime. Society tends to draw a line of distinction between stupidity and gross negligence.

Yes, and placing a 2 year old on top of a fence over an African wild dog enclosure is gross negligence and willful indifference.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Would you seek criminal charges for the parent whose child runs in the street and is struck by a car? The child who accidentally drowns? Should we criminalize leaving the battery out of the smoke alarm (not counting landlords' responsibilities)? Yes, these can be outrageously irresponsible behaviors, but society doesn't have a consensus these are criminal acts.

It depends if any of those instances involved gross negligence and willful indifference by the parent. Like if the kid ran out in the street because mommy passed out drunk on the curb.

The drunk driving example is an analogy fail since the drunk driver is likely to re-offend and put more kids at risk. That needs to be addressed.

The loaded gun in a crib is an analogy fail because it crosses a line from stupid accident to gross negligence or willful indifference.

While I understand your point, stupidity is not necessarily considered a crime. Society tends to draw a line of distinction between stupidity and gross negligence.

Would you seek criminal charges for the parent whose child runs in the street and is struck by a car? The child who accidentally drowns? Should we criminalize leaving the battery out of the smoke alarm (not counting landlords' responsibilities)? Yes, these can be outrageously irresponsible behaviors, but society doesn't have a consensus these are criminal acts.

This woman didn't accidentally lose sight of her child and have them run into the road, she lifted the child on top of high safety railings to get a better view.

If that doesn't count as a prosecutable example of gross negligence then we might as well scrap the very idea of personal responsibility.

She is an idiot who killed her child by doing something personally that put the child in extreme danger.

__________________Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

My experience in zoos: They are all flush with money, pay their staff way too much, and can pretty much retrofit any exhibit they want any way they want.

Sorry, scratch that, and replace it with the diametrical opposite for all but a tiny subset of the most successful zoos.

It's possible that zoos recognize that state of the art in exhibit design includes glass barriers, moats, safety nets, etc., but they simply don't have the money to make those changes. Many (most?) zoos are still involved in the slow crawl of exhibit improvements that get the animals out of tiny cages and cement floors that were standard designs 100 years ago.

While I understand your point, stupidity is not necessarily considered a crime. Society tends to draw a line of distinction between stupidity and gross negligence.

Would you seek criminal charges for the parent whose child runs in the street and is struck by a car? The child who accidentally drowns? Should we criminalize leaving the battery out of the smoke alarm (not counting landlords' responsibilities)? Yes, these can be outrageously irresponsible behaviors, but society doesn't have a consensus these are criminal acts.

I'm reminded of a trip I took with my family to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison in Colorado when I was 4 or 5 years old. My primary memory of the trip was my Mom yelling at me not to lean over the railing. I can't imagine either of my parents holding me on top of the railing in such a dangerous location.

I'm just trying to define the limits of his statement. Just because the stupid parent is sorry doesnt mean they shouldn't be charged with a crime.

"Sorry" doesn't begin to describe how this woman must be feeling. Mixing a little compassion with logic isn't a crime, either.

As for jumping down into the pit after the child, 11 feet? Probably onto concrete? How many bones would she have had left to stand up again with? Not that I think she was thinking that rationally at the time.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

The need to blame and make someone pay really bothers me sometimes. We need to identify why things happen to avoid future danger, but sometimes the thirst for revenge just seems like masturbation to me.

The need to blame and make someone pay really bothers me sometimes. We need to identify why things happen to avoid future danger, but sometimes the thirst for revenge just seems like masturbation to me.

This woman seems like an idiot though.

If I was the prosecutor's office, I'd offer not prosecute, as long as she didn't sue the zoo or otherwise try to profit from her kid's death.

It really irks me when people say "Haven't they suffered enough!" If an employee had done the same thing they would have been arrested. Why are children treated like "possessions" of parents rather than people who have rights that need to be the same as anyone elses. The right to life is pretty basic. (Let's not derail into any abortion arguments for grawds sake) The woman was criminally negligent.

This also goes to people who leave their kids in a car on a hot day and have them suffocate. To me, criminal. What is to stop a parent from pretending it was an accident? Oh I was just trying to show him the view.....whoopsie~! I'm so devastated.

I cannot stand the lack of logic people have when looking at this. If you took the emotional woo out of the equation the woman caused the death of another person. Crime.

__________________“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”